Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Fixed 4x's --- Leupold vs Schmidt Bender Vs. Zeiss

Anyone that can't find the shoulder of a critter with either has serious problems. Bino's is where GREAT glass matters. YMOV's

Yep.

Yeah,but those high end euro's sure are fun to peep through

I've looked through a few and they were indeed pretty nice. If they fit a hunter's budget and needs then he should go for one. There are a couple of them that combine that outstanding view with reasonable size, weight and pretty good eye relief and so they tempt even me to break the piggy bank.

What gets old is the drone about wasting your time unless you're using Austrian or German Wunderkristall.

Waiting on that 2.5-10 S&B SFP.Old habits die hard

Pretty much also agree. Don't own one of the Europeans, altho I may pick one up , largely for curiosity.

Have all Leupold, Burris and weaver myself.

What I find equally old is the old spiel that any one that chooses other than L is a moron and that there is no difference.

Can't understand why anyone has to run down someone else's choice - if it was need my (dad's) old Savage 99, in 300 with open sights would provide all the 'need' I have , if I hunted as hard/often as I would like.

Your mileage might be different

I'm mainly a Leupold user and I can agree with that too. I get along quite well with certain Nikons and Zeiss Conquests.

You are quite right in that the manuels I've seen mention only focusing the reticle. That's fine. Many are satisfied with only that.
What none of you seem to understand is that the typical euro focusing system is far faster than the designs used by Leupold and that can lead to the idea that their "glass and coatings are better". Never mind that they all test very, very close to each other. That little bit of inconvenient data is routinely dismissed. If they have "better glass and coating," they must better in all other ways too. Another assumption that simply isn't true.
To give some conmparisions, the Leupold "fast" design has a range of about 3/4 of a turn where the reticle is at it's sharpest. But the typical euro system has only 1/4 to perhaps 1/3 of a turn. With the older Leupold system, the ocular can be rotated any where from 3-4 full turns while keeping the reticle in sharp focus.
What all of this means is that when you turn the ocular to focus the the reticle with a euro system you are already very close to focusing the image. In fact, both appear come into focus together.
That doesn't happen with a Leupold. You must go further for the best image focus. It isn't all that hard to do. I like to simply focus the reticle going in one direction, then counting the turns, keep going until I go all the way to the other end of the focus range. Then I simply backup half way. That puts you very close to the best image focus. From there, it is simple and quick. Has the virtue of not being easy pushed out of focus accidently to off set this additional adjustemnt effort.
You guys are really funny. Too bad. You are denying yourselves of the full performance of your Leupolds.
This is something I learned from Barsness. It made a big difference in the performance of my Leupolds. Using this method, I refocused lots of Leupolds belonging to others. Everyone of them really like the improvement. No exceptions.
Now, if it doesn't matter to you, that's fine. It's your scope. But if you don't do this, you get problems with reticles fading in bad light, not being able to see the target as well in bad light, losing image clarity as you increase the magnification of your scope, all sorts of things.
Just about the only thing poster Roe Deer, who is known far and wide as a huge fan of the "superior" euros, and I agree on is that the scope's ocular, any scope's ocular, can be used to focus both the reticle and the image. E

Oh so true. I agree 100%, and personally am quite happy with my fixed 4x Nikon Monarchs, 4.5x Weaver Grand Slam's or fixed 6x Leupold scopes on the rifles I hunt with the most. They allow me to put the bullet where it needs to go to get clean, humane kills.

That said, the S&B was truly head and shoulders above the Leupold (that I love to death) in terms of clarity and brightness when set at the same power, and I stand by my assertion that you would have to be delusional to not see the difference.

It would be about the same as looking through some high-end Leica binos and saying your Leupold Wind Rivers were "just as good."

They're not......

I find the assertion you constantly seem to make, that nobody but yourself actually knows how to focus a freaking scope, rather condescending and, to be honest, intellectually sophmoric as well.

This might surprise you, but there actually are other people out there who know how to use the optics that they buy. Some of them might actually be on the campfire, and **gasp** some of them might actually reply to your posts.....

Eremicus, I have a question for you. At what distance are you performing these focusing exercises.

Roy

Yep. I spend so little time looking through a scope - other than when shooting targets- that, on hunting rifles anyway, I consider other things as more important than exactly what the glass does or doesn't do. I "enjoy" the better view when comparing glass in the store, but arguing about the differences in the field seem ludicrous for what I do - and I've made some pretty fast, effective, "nearly" dark shots with the plain old Leupold 4Xs several rifles wear.

To find what I call the "reticle sharp range mid point," I often point the thing at the sky. When I focus for range, I use a target at that range.
The ranges I've used have been 100-300 yds. Frankly, I have a really tough time seeing any difference between 200 and 300 yds. with my 4X and 6X scopes. Now, with my VariXIII set on 10X, there is a tad of difference. It will also vary a very small amount as to the day. That is either my eyes for that day or the atmospheric conditions.
At all ranges, whichever I use, the reticle is always razor sharp. E

Thanks E. I was asking because Leupold's are parallax set for 150 yrds typically and I was wondering if this could be the reason why the image was not sharp at distances other that 150. If you think about it, scopes with adjustable parallax settings allow the user to make those adjustments for different ranges other than 150. I believe alot of other scope manufactures set their parallax for 100 which technically should give you the sharpest image if your are doing your scope adjustments at a 100 yard range. Just a thought.

I've got and used both types of scopes. From what I've seen, too many think in terms of their AO or their side focus/parallax adjustment doing their focusing for them. Frankly, it doesn't work nearly as well. Particularly with the Leupold focusing system.
Adjusting the parallax will affect the scope's focus. But the focusing needs to be done with the ocular. Works much better.
Maybe some day I'll fool with my hunting scopes at the shorter ranges, say 50-75 yds and see how that works. I suspect it won't work well. I've also got an older Leupold 7.5X AO scope. That may well end up on a new .22 RF. If it does, all the more fun playing the focusing game. E

Depending on the application..For hunting I am perfectly satisfied with a 4X Leupold or a for that matter a 3X..I also like and use the 1x4 and 1.5x5 for hunting..I have one 300 H&H with a 2x7 Leupold..I like Leupold scopes..

For years I was an avid golfer and I bought new clubs all the time and alway had to have the best available, then one day and old and I mean old dude asked my group if he could play through us and we said "sure". His golf clubs were an array of junk..His driver was wood laminate that was so old the laminate was seperating. He drove the green, putted one time and disapeared into the sunset...

My point being why do I need an expensive, heavy, bulky, European scope when I have shot everything in the world with a Leupold, and not one instance has occurred so far that would have worked out any different with one of the expensive scopes form Europe...

The only difference in men and boys, is the cost of the mens toys!

Data needs to exist before it can be dismissed. Do you have some resolution test data you'd like to share with us? If you do, I promise we won't dismiss it.

I'm happy to entertain.

Now that's what's funny. It was so dull around here for a month or so. Not to worry, focusing school is back!

You are mistaking the argument for one of need. Now, unlike some of you guys, I am not nor will ever be a world-class shot with a rifle. I do, however, play goalie rather well. I could put on the pads I had back in the 1970's and 80's and still be better than most of the guys I play against. That doesn't have anything to do with a discussion of whether or not the new pads and gear are BETTER today than they were back then.

Or, to put it another way, I don't NEED better pads to play hockey well. You might not NEED a better scope to kill things, lord knows I don't, but that is irrelevant to a discussion of which scope actually IS better.

Well put. There are people who have shot everything on the planet with rifles that weren't very accurate. And done all that hunting with binoculars that are pretty crappy by today's standards. Does that mean we should strive for those things as well? How will they help?

Need, or even want was not the debate. IS was the debate. The standard Leupold glass and coatings ARE just as good as any brand on the planet. That is what was said. Saying better optics are not needed does not make that a true statement.

It's called circular logic.